An inclusive organisation - Moving away from acronyms and racial classification systems
October is Black History Month in the United Kingdom (UK). This month commemorates the history, achievements, and contributions of Black Britons, as has been the case each year since 1987. At this time, it is also fitting to question some of the institutions and practices that continue to highlight differences between individuals on the basis of skin colour and ethnicity.??
One area that needs rethinking is the terminology that institutions and organisations use to distinguish between individuals and that previously have justified differences in the treatment of certain groups. For example, BAME became the catch-all term in the UK for anyone from Black, Asian, or ‘minority ethnic’ communities. Its use grew recently with the Covid-19 pandemic accelerating its adoption, particularly by government and health agencies .??
It is time to move away from BAME. Indeed, an independent report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities recommends that aggregated terms such as BAME should not be used. Organisations should now be proactive and jettison the adoption of BAME and other racialised institutional language. Rather than using ‘tick boxes’ for ethnicity classification purposes, they should allow participants to describe their heritage and background, recognising and embracing the beautiful complexity that is present in multicultural societies.?
Classification systems?
In the United Kingdom and the United States of America, a Eurocentric or white-centric worldview exists where Whiteness is the norm against which all others are measured. This view is often preserved within major organisations and institutions. In many areas of work and society, skin colour plays a greater role in the lives of those from ethnically diverse backgrounds when compared to individuals who are white – for this latter group skin colour is rarely highlighted and is essentially invisible.??
Official classification systems are frequently used “for the monitoring and implementation of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation, and the acknowledgment that being a non-white minority entails a number of potential disadvantages” (Song, 2012: 568). Their use is justified on the basis of ensuring equality but, in a Catch-22 situation, using them can have the opposite impact as new research from Bournemouth University Business School in conjunction with researchers at the University of Portsmouth and the University of Hertfordshire has found. We interviewed women from ethnically diverse communities who were working in the hyper-masculinised and white-dominated sporting industry and asked their thoughts on institutional language.??
The ‘state’ has long categorised and classified people, as a function of modern bureaucracy. Political agendas have justified the need to divide the population into distinct communities, explaining disadvantages and discrimination because of historical processes or the group’s shared characteristics, rather than questioning the systems and institutions where these are created and reinforced (Aspinall, 2009). This need to classify has been particularly linked with the population census, with ethno-racial classifications first recorded in the 1991 Census . Communities were initially presented as clearly defined, not allowing movement between categories. Until the start of the twenty-first century, the population census only contained distinct categories, so the inclusion of a ‘Mixed’ race category in the 2001 census is important as it acknowledges that ethnicity is both complex and varied.?
The institutional terminology used in the UK has changed over time, with the term Black replacing the earlier favoured ‘coloured’ in the 1970s and 1980s to refer to people of African, Caribbean, and South Asian heritage. Although this terminology was partly designed to provide solidarity against overt racism it did not acknowledge that these experiences could be vastly different. In 1987, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) started to be used by the UK government, before it was expanded to make reference to Asian, giving rise to the now-outdated BAME acronym.??
But even the individual terms within the acronym, such as Black and Asian are problematic. The broadness of the terms assumes that everyone will be faced with similar challenges. They fail to capture the dissimilarities in experiences both within and across very different peoples. More so, the term ethnic minority, which is still identified as acceptable by UK Government is also an issue. It creates a dichotomy, privileging a White, western population that globally is in the minority. This has resulted in a recent push to embrace the term Global Majority .??
领英推荐
In our research, the BAME acronym was seen as preferable to overtly racist terms, which have been used previously and which sadly are still used by too many individuals. Yet the term caused discomfort for our participants. Until recently they felt the need to have a ‘thick skin’ and accept this term.??
Now, empowered by the Black Lives Matter movement, the use of the BAME acronym is being challenged. Greater media discussion of race that has resulted from this movement has also led to similar discussions in wider society. Our participants stated that they were able to not only challenge the use of inappropriate, racist language but to also challenge institutional language, such as the BAME acronym. One did so, eloquently stating:??
It's ironic that all the acronyms are for people of colour, race, whatever you want to put it. And I think that just doesn't do it a disservice, because if you look at white, you’ve got white British, white Irish, white Scottish, white Welsh.?
Our participants highlighted the beautifully complex nature of their identity and the pride that they felt in the various roots that make up their ethnicity. They also made it clear that their identities were fluid, changing over time and in different situations. The rigid classification systems that are used by organisations and governments to group individuals don’t allow them to express this diversity, causing distress. One of our participants summed this complexity up as follows:?
I always struggled to tick a box for, well you don't have to, but for your ethnicity because I guess ultimately, I'm mixed white and Asian, because my Dad's Indian, my Mum's half Italian but Italian is still considered Caucasian, isn't it? So, I'm basically mixed white and Indian … So sometimes I describe myself as Indalian but obviously that's not an actual ethnicity box that I can check. Maybe I should just check other and then write Indalian.?
Organisations that adopt racial classification systems have not caught up to the multicultural nature of British society. Institutional language is also an indication that an organisation continues to privilege Whiteness. But what can each of us, as individuals do???
Avoid white ignorance and challenge the use of acronyms that collapse difference and complexity into simple, uncaring categories in your organisation and society. When asking about someone’s ethnicity, allow them to self-declare and recognise their uniqueness. Alternative terms such as ethnically diverse or Global Majority as suggested by Rosemary Campbell-Stephens can be used in the place of these acronyms. These are small steps to take but they can have a big impact and increase the inclusivity of your organisation.
This article was written by Dr Keith Parry, Head of the Department of Sport & Event Management and Dr Emma Kavanagh, Senior Lecturer in Sports Psychology and Coaching Sciences at the Bournemouth University Business School.